From dan@irvine.com Thu Jul 13 04:49:38 1995 Return-Path: Received: from inmet.camb.inmet.com by dsd.camb.inmet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA12568; Thu, 13 Jul 95 04:49:38 EDT Received: from sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us) by inmet.camb.inmet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26093; Thu, 13 Jul 95 04:49:33 EDT Received: from flash.irvine.com by sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (8.6.11/) id IAA08537; Thu, 13 Jul 1995 08:50:33 GMT Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA10381; Thu, 13 Jul 95 01:48:58 -0700 Message-Id: <9507130848.AA10381@flash.irvine.com> To: ada-comment@sw-eng.falls-church.va.us Cc: dan@flash.irvine.com Subject: are pragmas allowed in generic formal parts? Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 01:48:57 PDT From: Dan Eilers !topic are pragmas allowed in generic formal parts? !reference RM95-02.08(05) !from Dan Eilers 95-07-13 <> !discussion RM95 2.8(7) seems to allow pragmas in generic formal parts, because use_clauses are (newly) allowed there. Is this intended? (It would seem reasonable.) If so, it should be added to the list of extensions in chg83.doc. RM95 2.8(6) forbids pragmas in formal_parts. It isn't obvious whether formal_parts are intended to include generic_formal_parts and thus contradict 2.8(7). From dan@irvine.com Thu Jul 13 05:09:03 1995 Return-Path: Received: from inmet.camb.inmet.com by dsd.camb.inmet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA13126; Thu, 13 Jul 95 05:09:03 EDT Received: from sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us) by inmet.camb.inmet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA26188; Thu, 13 Jul 95 05:09:01 EDT Received: from flash.irvine.com by sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (8.6.11/) id JAA08711; Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:09:58 GMT Received: from localhost by flash.irvine.com with SMTP (1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA11053; Thu, 13 Jul 95 02:08:21 -0700 Message-Id: <9507130908.AA11053@flash.irvine.com> To: ada-comment@sw-eng.falls-church.va.us Cc: dan@flash.irvine.com Subject: is the argument to pragma inline optional? Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 02:08:21 PDT From: Dan Eilers !topic is the argument to pragma inline optional? !reference RM95-06.03.02(02) !reference RM95-06.03.02(03) !reference RM95-10.01.05(02) !reference RM95-10.01.05(05) !from Dan Eilers 95-07-13 <> !discussion RM 10.1.5(2) "if there are no names given as arguments..." and RM 10.1.5(5) "if any", could be easily interpreted to mean that the arguments are optional for program unit pragmas. Is this intended (particularly for pragma inline)? (It would seem reasonable). This interpretation is contradicted by the syntax in RM 6.3.2(3) which indicates that the argument to pragma inline is not optional. From kst@alsys.com Thu Jul 13 17:34:52 1995 Return-Path: Received: from inmet.camb.inmet.com by dsd.camb.inmet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA23858; Thu, 13 Jul 95 17:34:52 EDT Received: from sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us) by inmet.camb.inmet.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA02003; Thu, 13 Jul 95 17:34:46 EDT Received: from gw.alsys.com by sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (8.6.11/) id VAA20370; Thu, 13 Jul 1995 21:35:45 GMT Received: from rasht.alsys.com (mailhub.alsys.com) by gw.alsys.com (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA25220; Thu, 13 Jul 95 14:34:13 PDT Received: from pulsar.telesoft by rasht.alsys.com (4.1/TS-1.2c) id AA25108; Thu, 13 Jul 95 14:34:11 PDT Received: by pulsar.telesoft (5.x/SMI-SVR4) id AA23319; Thu, 13 Jul 1995 14:34:08 -0700 Message-Id: <9507132134.AA23319@pulsar.telesoft> From: kst@thomsoft.com (Keith Thompson) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 14:34:06 PDT X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: ada-comment@sw-eng.falls-church.va.us Subject: Typo in AARM !topic ... will typically [by]{be} illegal ... !reference AARM-13.1(24.c) !from Keith Thompson 95-07-13 <>